Connect with us

Diplomacy

Is this high time for QUAD Plus Diplomacy?

Kannan Reghunathan Nair

Published

on

On March 20, 2020, the Quadrilateral Dialogue (QUAD) member countries, including Australia, Japan, India, and the United States, met through a video conference for discussing collective actions against COVID-19 pandemic. Initiated by the US deputy secretary of state Stephen Biegun, the meeting was unique due to the presence of like-minded democracies like Vietnam, New Zealand, and South Korea. The same group met again on March 27 and further exalted their agenda for a concerted opinion on the survival of concerned economies hit badly by the pandemic.

This alliance is termed as QUAD Plus across academic communities, confirming the restructuring of geopolitical equations in the Indo-Pacific region. Conversely, lack of integration among the whole existing ball of wax poses severe concerns over institutionalizing the QUAD Plus. In the current strategic environment, China has active multi-domain disputes with littorals in the Indo-Pacific. It is high time for compatible democracies to obliterate differences for attaining more significant strategic interests for a free and open Indo-Pacific.

In 2007 the then Japanese premier Shinzo Abe initiated the creation of a multilateral forum of democracies on the conception of Democratic Peace. As pointed out by Prof. Brahma Chellaey of Centre for Policy Research, that the Quadilteral Security Dialogues lays their foundation in Democratic Peace, a widely discussed theory in International Relations states that democratic states rarely go to war against each other. Nevertheless, after QUAD’s formation in 2007, the subsequent years have shown negative growth for the grouping. The same reason formulated the essence of the framework also played an essential role in its early demise; China’s Economic rise.

In February 2008, Australia withdrew from a joint naval exercise by QUAD countries and Singapore after Chinese Diplomatic Protests. The power change in Japan by replacing Abe with a pro-Beijing PM Yasuo Fukuda also triggered the disintegration of the newbie coalition. After 2008, the 31st ASEAN summit held at manila in 2017 viewed the rebirth of the forum and subsequently developed to foreign minister-level by 2019.

The coercive posturing of China in the Indo-Pacific by employing multimodal strategies to assert their national interest causes genuine security concerns over regional giants. This arisen discussion on the need for an extended quadrilateral security dialogue to balance China and to reinstate peace in the South and the East China Seas in compliance with the United Nations Convention for the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS).

China’s economic rise enhanced its influential position in low-income economies of South Asia and Southeast Asia. PRC’s investments diverged into infrastructure, connectivity, and development cooperation. This investment indulges the economies into a debt trap, afterwards directs them to take stands on Beijing’s interest. In 2012, ASEAN (Association of Southeast Asian Nations) failed to issue a joint declaration against China’s construction activities in the Scarborough shoal after Cambodia’s refusal. This refusal is noticeable and points to the fact of how china is using its economic might to legitimize their illegitimate actions. Moreover, China restricts its dependant countries engagement in multilateral organizations which have the intentions to balance Chinese actions.

However, this conception is changing recently; more nations stated about the aggressive behaviour of Beijing openly. The Ministry of External Affairs, Government of India, set up a new wing exclusively for Indo-Pacific in 2019. The same year the ASEAN published an outlook on Indo-Pacific. This pin-down new dynamics in shaping Indo-Pacific politics. Parlance with these developments, capitalizing shared interests is the key to address the issues.

This is high time for a reoriented QUAD leadership extended with new members for effective strategy building in deriving inclusive approach against the pandemic. China, with its expansionist policies amid the pandemic, necessitates the need for an extension and participation of the economies which are dependant economically on PRC in the unofficial QUAD-Plus meetings, reflects this.

Australia accounted for 250% more of its trade plus with china than the total trade surplus. Furthermore, 31% of the total exports from Australia concentrated on China in 2018. A country relies mainly on trade with China openly stood against the spread of the virus and been vocal for an international probe for investigating the origin of the virus. Same as Australia, New Zealand which shares similar instincts with China in trade also signalled deviance by endorsing the Indo-Pacific officially rather than Asia-Pacific which they often referred to earlier.

The recent troubles in diplomatic relations between South Korea and Beijing over the stationing of THAAD (Terminal High Altitude Area Defense) missiles in Seoul also prompted their participation in QUAD Plus virtual dialogue. This issue raised concern regarding the monitoring capacity of THAAD missiles to oversee China’s activities. 

For India and Vietnam, both are victims of China’s expansionist politics amid the pandemic. The skirmishes at Galwan valley and loss of 20 military personnel trigger New Delhi to take leadership in multilateral forums to effectively make decisions that they shied away from doing so in the past. Vietnam lost its two vessels in the last couple of months in the South China Sea, which is rammed and sank.

Japan’s new policy to diversify the risks and to reduce the over-dependence of Japanese firms in manufacturing units of China is the latest example. China’s surveillance cutters patrolling in the disputed Senkaku islands also induced Tokyo’s actions. Abe hopes the new policies yield more on security and strategic aspects and to endow more opportunities for medium-sized firms in Japan. 

Recently, India stated their interest to include Australia in the Malabar naval exercises. This change has immense importance on the grounds of the United States dipping presence after its withdrawal from the Trans-Pacific Partnership in 2017 and the prospective impact of COVID-19 in the future of its deployments in the South China Sea. For a rules-based order in Indo-Pacific, the role of the Indo-Pacific Oceans Initiative is cunning. Still, the herculean task will be to institutionalize QUAD Plus coupled with expected economic risks posed by China. There are prospects for comprehending the idea of QUAD plus to flatten the lopsided power distribution in Indo-Pacific in the current strategic environment.

Kannan R Nair is a Research Fellow at the Eurasian Research and Analysis Institute. He was previously associated with the National Institute of Advanced Studies and Global Schools Program. Currently pursuing his Integrated Masters in Political Science at the Central University of Pondicherry

Continue Reading
Comments

Diplomacy

Covid-19 Sports Diplomacy: Soft power vs. populism

Eric Ehrmann

Published

on

Sports diplomacy existed long before Joseph Nye coined the term “soft power”. It was supposed to peacefully “co-opt” political actors rather than threaten or coerce them—which is, historically, how “hard power” works. But facing the Covid-19 pandemic, in existential terms, soft power gets left at the starting gate because the pandemic represents a threat greater than the threat of nuclear weapons, and mediating the Covid-19 threat it is not a series of polite conversations, but a merciless race against time

Against this backdrop, to palliate the anomie and the psychoterror caused by the pandemia, some world leaders are supporting the return of competitive athletics—spectator sports—to create the sense of a “new normal.” The costs of doing this are likely to be more social, than political. After all, Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump are well known sports fans. Joe Biden is not.

TASS reports that the Russian Premier League football championship will resume play late next month. Germany’s vaunted Bundesliga has already started playing in empty stadiums with some modified rules and players and venues under strict medical control. Online advertising that link to gambling sites appear on nearly every sports journal or sports gossip site about the Bundesliga and lesser leagues that you visit. There is talk in London’s Fleet Street press that England’s Premier League wants to resume games in June in spite the reluctance of a few team owners and, some players. As the pandemia continues to kill, professional sports in the United States including football, baseball and basketball are planning to resume playing, to empty houses via television. It is the same throughout the “British Commonwealth,” where cricket has an audience of around a billion people eager to watch—and bet on—games. Hundreds of billions of dollars in sports and entertainment economy dollars have been lost and among the powers behind those interests, there is a sense that “winback time” is approaching. For them, in business terms, it is time for them to recoup their losses.

But how long will it be before sports fans grow tired of just watching—and betting—on sports online from their homes. We are already seeing the pressure—via social media—the desire of people to return to the stadiums. People want to escape quarantines and lockdowns and eat, drink and be merry. This means the return, en force, of racism, hooliganism and other types of violent behavior. People want to hang out at sports bars with restaurants, go to betting parlors, take cruises and ride ferry boats that offer sports and table gambling. Some of these “fans” are members of organized clubs that have links to criminal and extreme right wing groups, and these organizados (what the groups are called in Latin America where I live) will create more challenges for those involved in policing sports crime. Las Vegas will soon be open for business with social distancing enforced, visitors required to wear masks, and have their body temperature taken on walking through the door. That gives a green light to just about everybody. Good guys, and bad.

Sports diplomacy existed long before the term “sports diplomacy” was coined. We can find it first at the 1936 Berlin summer olympics, where african-american Jesse Owens soundly defeated the best athletes prodced by Adolf Hitler’s “master race”. A message was sent. A message of freedom winning out against totalitarianism. Ironically, the Adidas shoe company claims on one of their websites that Owens won his gold medals running in their shoes.

We can also find sports diplomacy associated with Hungary’s “Golden Team” featuring Ferenc Puskas and Gyula Lorant that won the 1952 Helsinki olympics gold medal in football and was a finalist in the 1954 World Cup in Bern, helping foment the ill-fated Hungarian revolution which created political, and public relations problems, for the Kremlin. One can argue that both of these situations were “hard power” sports diplomacy, before the concept of “hard power” was even “branded.” It was the era when the calculations to develop nuclear power—and nuclear weapons—were made with slide rules, not supercomputers.

During the same Cold War period, during the global polio epidemic (it was not called a pandemic), the Kremlin allowed millions of Soviet citizens to be tested with the polio vaccine developed by the American doctor, Albert Sabin. This was an amazing diplomatic and humanitarian effort promulgated by two bitter Cold War rivals. It is unlikely that similar cooperation to develop a Covid-19 vaccine can happen in our current political-psychological scenario. Some countries want to develop “their own” (proprietary) vaccine and not share. It’s analogically akin to a child who is holding a chocolate bar, saying “this is mine and you can’t have any.” Other fearmongering politicians and internet influencers say that cooperation to develop a Covid-19 vaccine invites “industrial espionage” or “cyberspying.”

Maybe the Covid-19 pandemia will create the impetus to “repurpose” what we call “sports diplomacy” in the “post-pandemic era.” One hears the FIFA slogan, “for the game, for the world.” And there is the slogan “we are basketball”. Or the Asian Football Confederation meme “one Asia, one goal.” Will these slogans, memes, and their superstar spokespersons and expensive advertising and public relations campaigns hold the same meaning in the “post pandemic era” or will they become less relevant? Do average sports fans, women and men, or even the athletes—if you stopped to ask one of them getting off their team bus or out of their limousine (when they are not wearing the headphones they are often being paid to endorse) know what these slogans mean, in general, and to themselves?

As the pandemia continues, the so does the demonization Moscow and Beijing, and the assesment of “penalties” and sanctions by one nation to another in realpolitik— via public diplomacy, economic policy, social media. It’s reminiscent of the role of the “enforcer” that we see during games of ice hockey. This current scenario further stretches the frayed fabric of cooperation between security services and police organizations (and back channels) among the major powers, including those who are at odds with each other.

Cooperation, not confrontation as examplified by the politics of “vaccine nationalism” that been manufactured by the White House is what is required to contain the current pandemic. Then too, because mainstream and epidemiological media are reporting that the possibility of producing successfuly a vaccine that will be effective during “peak periods” is only 50%, an effective countermeasure may never emerge from at least one, among the several vaccines that are being developed. Nations ought to work together to minimize the risks of the current—and the next global health crisis—rather than operate at cross-purposes, which only doubles down on those risks. Why aren’t very many “sports diplomats” or “sports brand ambassadors” having “soft power” conversations about that…

From our partner RIAC

Continue Reading

Diplomacy

Pandemic as the Learning Lab and Government Reloaded

Matthias E. Leitner

Published

on

How to enable a sustainable exit from the ‚Lockdown‘ Phase and create greater resilience for society ? This is an existential question not only for countries in the Global South but also for the industrialized economies hard hit by the Pandemic. State power manifested itself in emergency response at the cost of civil rights and liberties whereas an all-of-society effort is needed to tackle the virus in the medium term, with sufficient breathing space for economic activities, and informed discussion for citizens. It is possible to envisage civic empowerment and education strategies which also capitalize on digital networks and solutions. The Pandemic is our global learning lab where such resources can be marshalled, and a reappraisal of previous development cooperation models might occur. While multilateralism has taken a serious hit in the response to COVID-19 so far, the damage can be mitigated by soft power cooperation and mutual learning that spans regions and continents.

Countries in the industrialized north have started to relax restrictions and are taking first steps to normalize after successfully flattening the curve of virus infections. Political discussion has started which approaches are most successful in state posture against COVID: the ‘mission-driven‘ interventionist approach or the minority approach of  relying on nudges instead of restrictions to convince people of the best interest in prevention, with the UK caught in the middle and a belated response spiral. One thing is certain: the Pandemic has been highly disruptive and the mix of policies and regulations adopted is as diverse as it cuts through all aspects of governance, from the most mundane to the most critical including movement of people and border security.

The epicenter of the Pandemic has shifted from Europe to Latin America, where Brazil is shaping up as a hot spot, due to low testing and under-reporting. In the week of 18 May, the US stopped flight connections to Brazil, where the impact of the virus has been most prominent, especially in Sao Paulo and other population centers as far as the Amazon region. Initial calls and solidarity initiatives were focused on Sub-Saharan Africa, where infection rates remain generally lower but rising in several countries, especially in West Africa (Nigeria, Ghana and Congo/DRC, as well as South Africa). Numbers rose from 26,000 cases to 91,000 cases between 22 April and 19 May 2020 on the continent.

Multilateralism Weakened against COVID-19

As states and governments continue to grapple with the impact of the Pandemic, the multilateral level has been hampered by superpower rivalry between China and the US. Even the recent World Health Assembly (held for the first time as online conference) narrowly avoided fracture over strident US challenges about handling the crisis and suspicions voiced against China where the virus originated. Despite some pragmatic moves to maintain logistics and emergency relief pipelines for developing states, governments are largely left alone to come to terms with the virus impact and restore trust among their populations. For the post-COVID period, experts such as former Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd see a risk of “anarchy” developing in the international arena.

Perhaps the notion of leadership by one or two superpowers is no longer even adequate to formulate the response to a new virus which is still imperfectly understood and has caused a Pandemic of large proportions. The deep impact on an interconnected world is beyond the power of a single large country or even a bloc to repair, and it defies accurate prognosis. For assisting the developing nations in dealing with the virus fallout provide stronger emergency relief, the World Trade Conference (UNCTAD) has estimated a  $ 2.5 trillion USD  package would be required. In view of the resources required for mobilizing the EU reconstruction or for the US revival from the Pandemic, it is not likely that so much additional funding can be provided. Economic damage to the global GDP keeps getting revised upwards since the IMF estimated a 3% fall starting in April 2020 and lasting well into 2021, in a global recession.

Paradigm Shift and Government Role Re-Defined

The EU High Representative for External Affairs Josep Borrell has argued that the new global situation amounts to a fundamental shift, away from the hyper-globalization up until the end of 2019. The EU has also been clearest among international actors for a ‘Green Deal’ to be built into the reconstruction post-COVID, although the internal debate among EU Member States about financing modalities is far from over. 

Consensus is forming about restoring some institutional backbone and competences to public services, especially in the health sector, instead of privatizing and cost-cutting approaches. Yet Big Government as the key enabler and guarantor of peoples‘ welfare is called in question, at the international level but also in relation to central government powers and regions or federal states (affected by COVID-19 to varying degrees). There is plenty of suspicions about a surveillance state limiting civil freedoms, in the aftermath of lockdowns; few in the West would agree with invasive health monitoring that helped China and Asian countries manage the outbreak, or trade-offs in surveillance, because of the totalitarian misrule in Europe from the 1930s through the 1950s. Instead, democratizing the virus response and local/civic empowerment might be the alternative way forward, with a ‘Smart Government’ listening, prompting for feedback and nurturing the civil society potentials beyond what is commonly deemed feasible through supporting tech start-ups. We have much to learn from emerging democracies in tackling the virus at local level and technology exists to socialize these insights also in the industrialized countries.

Development Cooperation for Resilience and Social Capital

The COVID-19 emergency is also the hour of generating resilience through social capital and its conscious strengthening and promotion- often maligned as a nice word for influence peddling and corruption.  The inter-disciplinary and cross-regional work that is to be done has already been sketched in a recent study of the  Mo Ibrahim Foundation on the dimensions of governance engaged in tackling the virus fallout in countries of the Global South. Statistics generation is highlighted in this study but collecting data and achieving data sovereignty for concerned population groups is still to be examined for its full potential.

Returning to Latin America, the current pandemic exacerbates traditional dilemmas of government: approaches of ‚Mano Dura‘ in Central American states versus laissez-faire capitalism in others. Meanwhile, countries such as Colombia and Argentina show multiple digital solutions tried out in view of a new challenge to previous political, security and economic shocks. People-to-people social protection is often kicking in where the pandemic has accentuated income inequalities.

It is not difficult to develop a COVID-19 “Resilience Crash Program” that builds on home-grown initiatives. Participatory data collection via simple online surveys or via Mobile Phones can be promoted and help identify the areas of greatest concern, avoiding pockets of regional/peri-urban exclusion. Women and youth participation would be consciously boosted, including through volunteers, which has also found a good response in Switzerland.

The initial results are a basis for engaging the Social Partners both in the formal and informal sector where advantages exist in Latin America. Listening and learning will help to identify bottlenecks and innovations that can help the productive sector of countries muster resilience and exit durable from the impact of the virus. The behavior change from this process is where government authorities can come in and promote successful initiatives, encourage coalition building, moderate the conflict sensitivity and help to build back better, including in ecologically sustainable formats. 

A national inventory of lessons learned can be made available and enrich government response in the industrialized countries- promoting exchange of ideas and people-to people solidarity. At the risk analysis stage for certain affected regions, Brazil has already produced detailed work in late April. Governments stimulating such cooperation to complement traditional sector economic cooperation and relief programs can provide a cost-effective instrument, which might well be financed from a new EU Trust Fund, the Inter-American Development Bank or others. For instance, the EU funding envelope from the 2015 La Valletta Conference (where migration was the dominant concern for ‘Emergency Trust Funds‘,) is ending in late 2020. 

We will be able to restore lost international solidarity, and re-connect faster if this Smart Government model is set to work in full respect of human rights and the realization of social and economic rights which many countries have signed up to.

Continue Reading

Diplomacy

Winds of Change

Ankit Malhotra

Published

on

The winds of change  have, unlike ever before, cast reservations over the international order of reverence. As each nation scrambles to keep its citizens out of harm’s way, multilateralism, or in simpler terms, unity of nations is neglected. Nations, in such times of uncertainty, must unite. Unite, not for personal enrichment but global welfare. The beacon of hope and the long-standing guardian of united world order, the United Nations must, as it has in the past, act to unite. In this regard, history postures itself as a potent catalyst illustrating the virtues of multilateralism. 1960, like 2020 was marred with political turmoil, unprecedented world events, and an increasingly divided society. On the 3rd day of February in 1960, Prime Minister Harold Macmillan’s, an evangelist in hopes of reviving multilateralism, addressed the Parliament of South Africa in Cape Town. His speech was titled, the Winds of Change and coincided with the British empire’s decline in comparison to the rise of independence movements within the British colonies.

Before addressing the Parliament, the British Prime Minister traveled around the Union and found a deep preoccupation with what was happening in the rest of the African continent. He said, “I understand and sympathize with your interests in these events and your anxiety about them. Ever since the breakup of the Roman Empire, one of the constant facts of political life in Europe has been the emergence of independent nations. They have come into existence over the centuries in different forms and kinds of Governments. But all have been inspired by a deep keen feeling of nationalism. In the 20th Century and especially since the end of the wars, the processes which gave birth to the nation-states of Europe have been repeated all over the world.

We have seen the awakening of national consciousness in peoples who have, for centuries, lived in dependence upon some other power. Fifteen years ago this movement (de-colonisation) spread through Asia. Many countries, of different races and civilizations, pressed their claim to an independent nation. Today, the same is happening in Africa. The wind of change is blowing through this continent and whether we like it or not this the growth of national consciousness is a political fact. We must all accept it as fact and our national policies must take account of it. I sincerely believe that if we cannot do so, we may peril the precarious balance between East and West on which the peace of the world depends. The struggle is joined and it is a struggle for the minds of men. This is much more than our military strength or our diplomatic and administrative skill. It is, of our way of life at the same time we must recognize that in this shrinking world in which we live today, the internal policies of one nation may have effects outside it. So we may sometimes be tempted to say mind your own business. These days, I would expand the old saying so that it says, mind your own business but mind how it affects my business too.

The population of America like Africa’s is a blend of many different strains. Over the years most of those who’ve gone to North America have gone there to escape conditions in Europe. The Pilgrim Fathers were escaping from persecution, as Puritans were escaping the Marylanders. Roman Catholics, throughout the 19th century witnessed a stream of immigrants across the Atlantic from the Old World to the New to escape. From the poverty in their homelands and now in the 20th Century, the United States have provided asylum for the victims of political oppression in Europe. Thus, for the majority, America has been a place of refuge. Therefore, for many years the main objective of American statesmen, supported by the American public, was to isolate themselves from Europe. Americans, with their great material strength and the vast resources which were open to them saw this as an attractive and practicable course. Nevertheless, twice in my lifetime in the two Great Wars of these 50 years, they have been unable to stand aside. Twice, their manpower and arms have streamed back across the Atlantic to shed its blood in those European struggles from which their ancestors thought they could escape by immigrating to the New World. When the Second War was over, they were forced to recognize that in the small world of today, isolationism is out of date and more than that, it offers no assurance of security. The fact is that, in this modern world no country, not even the greatest can live for itself alone.

What Dr. John Donne said of individual men 300 years ago is true today of my country, of your country, and all the countries, ‘any man’s death diminishes me because I am involved in mankind and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls it tolls for thee’.  All nations are now interdependent. Yet, they are, one upon another, and this is generally realized throughout the Western world. Russia has been isolationist in her time and still has tendencies that way but the fact remains that we must live in the same world. With Russia, we must find a way of doing. Similarly, the independent members of the Commonwealth do not always agree on every subject. It is not a condition of their association that they should do so.

On the contrary, the strength of our Commonwealth lies largely on the fact that it is a free association. Free, independent and responsible for ordering its affairs. But, bearing in mind that, cooperation, in the pursuit of common aims and purposes in world affairs. Moreover, these differences may be transitory in time. They may be resolved. We must see them in this perspective, in a perspective against the background of our long association. If this, at any rate, I am certain those of us, who by the grace or favor of the electors are temporarily in charge of affairs in your country and mine, we, fleeting transient phantoms of the great stage of history have no right to sweep aside on this account the friendship that exists between our countries. That is the legacy of history. It is not ours alone to deal with. To adapt to a famous phrase, it belongs to those who are living, it belongs to those who are dead, and to those who are unborn. We must face the differences but let us try to see a little beyond them. Down the long Vista of the future but as time passes and as one generation yields to another, human problems change and fade. Let us, therefore, resolve to build and not to destroy. Let us also remember, weakness comes from division and in words, familiar to you, strength from unity.”

As pervasive viruses infiltrate lives on racial, health, gender and sexual orientations. The virus of stigmatization and isolationism personifies the 21st Century and the myriad of global complications. Life, as it was known, is on trial. The inequalities have perpetuated and have fundamentally shifted the world in a stagnant state of paralysis. But, it is worth remembering that only after the Dark Ages was there an Age of Renaissance and only after a crisis would one value the values it espoused. As the turbulent winds of change are blowing throughout the world and the global human consciousness must rise. Otherwise, the ultimate tragedy of humanity will prevail. Thus, to survive, we must unite and hope we can live to fight another day.

Continue Reading

Publications

Latest

Trending